MANJIT SINGH Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is to the complaint dtd. 12/10/2020 filed on 21/10/2020, titled "Manjit Singh Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited" filed under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1881") registered as Criminal Complaint No.9085, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UT, Chandigarh as well as the summoning order dtd. 21/1/2021 (Annexure P-2) along with all the subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, cheque for an amount of Rs.1,53,02,122.00 dtd. 16/9/2020 was returned on 17/9/2020, with the remarks "Funds Insufficient/Dormant Account" and legal notice was issued on 29/9/2020 and the complaint was instituted on 21/10/2020 and the summoning order was passed on 21/1/2021. It is contended that the petitioner is seeking to challenge the complaint and summoning order solely on the ground that as per the Order dtd. 8/3/2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 (Annexure P-4), the period from 15/3/2020 till 14/3/2021,was to be excluded in computing the period under proviso (b) and (c) of Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 and any other law, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting the proceedings. It is further contended that in the said order dtd. 8/3/2021, reference has been made to the order dtd. 23/3/2020 which was the first order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special law, with effect from 15/3/2020 and it has also been noticed in the Order dtd. 8/3/2021 that the said Order dtd. 23/3/2020 was extended from time to time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide order dtd. 23/9/2021 (Annexure P-5), the period from 15/3/2020 till 2/10/2021, was ordered to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for any suit/appeal/application/proceeding which also included proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881. He has also placed reliance upon order dtd. 10/1/2022 (Annexure P-6), vide which, the above-said period, which was up to 2/10/2021, was extended till 28/2/2022. It is further contended that since period from 15/3/2020 till 28/2/2022, stood excluded in computing the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 and in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reference had been made to proviso (b) and (c) of Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881, thus, the complaint which was filed on 21/1/2021 i.e., within that excluded period, is premature and cognizance which has been taken during the said period is also illegal and against the said orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, deserves to be set aside.